Perspectives entourant la transition des apprenantes et apprenants de la formation générale des adultes vers le cégep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur la transition au cégep des apprenantes et apprenants de la formation générale des adultes (FGA) qui choisissent, après l’obtention de leur diplôme d’études secondaires dans cet ordre d’enseignement, de s’inscrire dans un programme collégial. Cette recherche adopte une démarche d’ethnographie d’enquête et s’appuie sur le modèle théorique de Long (1989) et de l’éducation tout au long de la vie de Bélanger (2011); elle engage, dans un processus de coconstruction, le savoir d’expertes et experts pédagogiques du milieu sur cette question rarement traitée, dans une perspective d’éducation des adultes. Les enjeux de nature psychologique, pédagogique et andragogique montrent l’engagement important des personnes apprenantes et le cheminement de reconstruction qu’elles ont choisi pour favoriser leur insertion sociale. La nécessité de créer un pont entre la FGA et le monde collégial est posée comme une manière de soutenir ce parcours vers l’émancipation éducative de l’adulte dans la société québécoise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".